Chuck Grassley

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have mentioned before that I have been paying attention to foreign state-owned companies' growing investments in American companies and commercial markets. I would like to spend a few minutes discussing that issue today. It is becoming increasingly clear that foreign state-owned companies are highly involved in international commerce and competing with companies that are privately owned by shareholders, not governments. This trend is part and parcel of globalization. While there are some obvious benefits to globalization, we also need to be aware of the challenges it may bring with it, and I think this is one of those. To give one example, I have seen this trend at work in the agricultural sector. ChemChina, a Chinese state-owned company, is currently working on a deal to buy the Swiss-based seed company, Syngenta. About a third of Syngenta's revenue comes from North America--meaning the company is heavily involved with American farmers, including Iowans--and that's why I'm interested in the transaction. I have already been considering the approval aspect of this proposed merger. Senator Stabenow and I asked the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to review thoroughly the proposed Syngenta acquisition with the Department of Agriculture's help. We raised the issue because, as I have said before, protecting the safety and integrity of our food system is a national security imperative. Now there is another aspect of this issue I would like to focus on today. Consider this the flip-side of the approval question. As their involvement in international commerce grows, how can we ensure that foreign state-owned companies are held to the same standards and requirements as their non-state-owned counterparts. First consider two age-old principles of international law. One is that American courts don't exercise jurisdiction over foreign governments as a matter of comity and respect for equally independent sovereigns. This is called ``foreign sovereign immunity.'' The second is that when foreign governments do in fact enter into commerce and behave like market participants--conducting a state-owned business, for example--they are not entitled to foreign sovereign immunity because they are no longer acting as a sovereign, but rather as a business. In that case they should be treated just like any other market participant. This is called the ``commercial activity exception'' to the principle of foreign sovereign immunity. Congress codified both of these age-old principles in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976. These principles are well and good, but I am concerned that, in some cases, they may not have their intended effects in today's global marketplace. Some foreign state-owned companies have recently used the defense of foreign sovereign immunity--the principle that a foreign government can't be sued in American courts--as a litigation tactic to avoid claims by American consumers and companies that non-state-owned foreign companies would have to answer. In some cases, foreign state-owned corporate parent companies have succeeded in escaping Americans' claims. They have done this by arguing that the entity conducted commercial activities only through a particular subsidiary--not a parent company often closer to the foreign sovereign. Unless a plaintiff--which may be an American company or consumer--is able to show complete control of the subsidiary by the parent company, the parent company is able to get out of court before the plaintiffs can even try to make their case. This results in two problems. First, there's an unequal playing field where state-owned foreign companies benefit from a defense not available to non-state-owned companies. Second, there is an uphill battle for American companies and consumers seeking to sue state-owned entities as opposed to non-state-owned entities. When a foreign state- owned entity raises the defense of foreign sovereign immunity, American companies and consumers don't even get the chance to prove their case. Consider the example I talked about a few months ago. American plaintiffs brought claims against Chinese manufacturers of much of the drywall used to rebuild the Gulf Coast after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The drywall in question was manufactured by two Chinese companies--one owned by a German parent and one owned by a Chinese state-owned parent company. The court considering these plaintiffs' claims had this to say: ``In stark contrast to the straight forwardness with which the . . . litigation proceeded against the [German] defendants, the litigation against the Chinese entities has taken a different course.'' The German, non-state-owned parent company appeared in court and participated in a bellwether trial where plaintiffs were allowed to try to make out their cases. The manufacturer with a Chinese state-owned parent ``failed timely to answer or otherwise enter an appearance'' in court--and didn't do so for nearly two years. In fact, it waited until the court had already entered a judgment against it. Only then did the Chinese state-owned company finally appear in court. When it did, it argued, that it was immune from suit in the United States because it was a state-owned company. After approximately 6 years of litigation, it ultimately succeeded in its request for dismissal. In contrast to the German parent company, the plaintiffs didn't have a chance to try to prove up their case against the Chinese parent company merely because it happened to be owned by a foreign government. I think that is a problem. To address these issues I am proposing a modest fix to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. This change would extend the jurisdiction of United States courts to state-owned corporate affiliates of foreign state-owned companies insofar as their commercial activities are concerned. It wouldn't create any additional substantive causes of action against these foreign state-owned companies. Instead, it would mean only that a foreign state-owned company would have to respond to the claims brought by American companies and consumers, just like any other foreign company that isn't owned by a government. The fix has two main results--correcting the problems I just mentioned. First, it levels the playing field between foreign state- owned and foreign private companies by making both subject to suit in the United States on the same footing, as the ``commercial activity exception'' originally contemplated. Second, it brings clarity to the sometimes opaque structure of foreign state-owned enterprises and provides American companies and consumers the chance to prove their case against these companies just as against private companies. In an age when sovereign owned entities, with increasingly complex structures, are interacting with American companies and consumers more than ever it is appropriate to re-examine the ``commercial activity'' exception and to update it. We have to make sure it is working as it was designed and historically understood.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record at the end of my speech articles from the Boston Globe on September 6, 2016, and the New York Times on September 8, 2016. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss my very serious concerns about the FBI's selective release of Clinton investigation material and especially how the Senate is handling the unclassified but not yet public information provided by the FBI. On the Friday before a holiday weekend, the FBI chose to release to the public only two of the dozens of unclassified documents it provided to the Congress. Director Comey said: ``The American people deserve the details in a case of intense public interest'' and ``unusual transparency is in order.'' He is right. The people have a right to know, but actions speak louder than words. Right now the public has only a very narrow slice of the facts gathered by the FBI. The FBI has released only its summary of the investigation and the report of the interview with Secretary Clinton. However, its summary is misleading or inaccurate in some key details and leaves out other important facts altogether. There are dozens of unclassified reports describing what other witnesses said, but those reports are still hidden away from the public. They are even being hidden from most congressional staff, including some who have been conducting oversight of the FBI on these issues. Why? Because the FBI improperly bundled these unclassified reports with a very small amount of classified information and told the Senate to treat it all as if it were classified. This is certainly not the ``unusual transparency'' Director Comey said he would provide. In fact, it is just the opposite: unusual secrecy. Normally, when an agency sends unclassified information to the Office of Senate Security, the office that handles and controls classified information, there is a very simple solution. The executive order and regulations governing classified information require that information be properly marked so that the recipient knows what is and is not classified. In the past, when the Judiciary Committee, which I chair, needed to separate classified information from unclassified information, the Office of Senate Security very simply looked at the markings on the paper and provided copies of the unclassified information without any restrictions, but that has not been done in this specific case. Why not? Because the FBI has instructed the Senate office that handles classified information not to separate the unclassified information which could then be made public. Think about that. The FBI, part of the executive branch of government, is instructing a Senate office about how to handle unclassified information. Our Constitution creates a carefully balanced system of separation of powers--executive, judicial, legislative. The executive branch cannot instruct a legislative branch office to keep information from the public unless the legislative branch agrees or there is a legal basis for keeping the information secret. There are laws governing the handling of classified information, but those laws cannot and should not be used to shield unclassified FBI documents from public scrutiny and vigorous constitutional, congressional oversight. But even setting aside the constitutional concerns, what is happening now is totally inconsistent with the executive branch's own rules and regulations regarding classified information. This is what Executive Order No. 13526 says: The classification authority shall, whenever practicable, use a classified addendum whenever classified information constitutes a small portion of an otherwise unclassified document or prepare a product to allow for the dissemination at the lowest level of classification or in unclassified form. That is the quote from Executive Order No. 13526. The binder the FBI delivered containing interview reports is, very largely, unclassified. The vast majority of these reports are unclassified in full and the rest have only a few classified paragraphs in each one. According to the executive order I just quoted, the FBI--part of the executive branch of government--should have provided a separate set containing primarily classified material that could not be separated from an unclassified portion. Further, that same executive order states--and I want everybody to get this quote: ``In no case shall information be classified, continued to be maintained as classified, or fail to be declassified in order to: prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.'' That is an executive order that ought to bind the FBI. Unclassified material is, by definition, information that does not require protection in the interest of national security. Yet contrary to this executive order, it is being locked away from the public and even most congressional staff and maintained as if it were classified. Americans deserve accountability from their government. There will not be any accountability if the Federal Government is not transparent. The American people deserve to know the truth. I want to be clear with the American people about what is going on here. If the FBI wants to provide unclassified information to Congress but also keep it hidden from the public, then it should discuss the issue with the committee and negotiate any restrictions beforehand. It should not be allowed to unilaterally impose its will on its oversight committee by delivering documents with all kinds of restrictions that prevent the committee from using those documents. The selective releases of some of the documents deprives Congress and the public of the full context. It is not fair to the public, to the Congress, or to Secretary Clinton. That is why, using common sense, even Secretary Clinton has called for information to be released in full. I agree with her 100 percent. The FBI says it sent these documents to the Hill in keeping with our oversight responsibilities. Well, oversight and investigation mean more than just receiving whatever information the FBI provides. Independent oversight means double-checking the facts, it means contacting witnesses, and it means asking followup questions. We can't use these documents to help us perform these three steps if they are locked away in the basement of this building. In order to do its job, the committee will have to refer to these documents in the course of speaking to other witnesses and writing oversight letters. This is principles of investigation 101--very elementary. The FBI is still trying to have it both ways. At the same time the FBI talks about ``unprecedented transparency,'' it is placing unprecedented hurdles in the way of congressional oversight of unclassified law enforcement matters. It turns over documents but with strings attached. It unilaterally instructed the Senate to keep them secret, even though they are unclassified. They want to keep the information locked up. If we honor that instruction, we cannot do our constitutional duty of acting as an independent check on the executive branch and, in this case, the FBI. At least the FBI has publicly released small portions of this unclassified material I am talking about. However, that selective release has contributed to inaccuracies in the public discussion of this issue. That is why I agree with Secretary Clinton that it should all be released as soon as possible. Here is why: On Tuesday, the Boston Globe article wrote about evidence from the publicly released FBI summary that suggests an engineer for an IT company managing the server may have intentionally deleted emails, even though that engineer knew they were the subject of a congressional investigation subpoena. That is the article I asked for and received permission to put into the Congressional Record. The timeline of that deletion the Boston Globe is talking about occurred around the conference call with that engineer, Cheryl Mills, and David Kendall--Hillary Clinton's lawyers. Relying on the publicly available information, some have claimed the engineer deleted the emails on his own volition. Whether he did so on his own or at the instruction of somebody else is of course a very key question, and there is key information related to that issue that is still being kept secret, even though--it is being kept secret--even though it is unclassified. If I honor the FBI's instructions not to disclose the unclassified information it provided to Congress, I cannot explain why. Meanwhile, the New York Times has reported that a second computer expert that worked on Secretary Clinton's servers for a contractor was also given immunity by the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice didn't inform Congress about the immunity deal. The Department of Justice is briefing the New York Times anonymously while refusing to answer questions from its oversight committee about the immunity deals. Why is it the New York Times gets information for investigation, but the Committee of Commerce doesn't get that same information? At the same time, the FBI is putting a stranglehold on unclassified documents that describe what these witnesses said to the FBI. This is the opposite of the transparency which we are told by the FBI is so important because this is a high-profile case. The other witness granted immunity--Bryan Pagliano--pled the Fifth to Congress. Congress has a right to question these individuals. They have reportedly received some sort of immunity for their cooperation with the FBI. The public ought to know what information they provided in exchange for a get-out-of-jail-free card. The American people deserve the whole truth. The public's business ought to be public, and if it is not classified, then all the facts should be part of the public discussion. Inaccuracies are spreading because of the FBI's selective release. For example, the FBI's recently released summary memo may be contradicted by other unclassified interview summaries that are being kept locked away from the public. Unfortunately, the public can't know without disclosure of information, that the FBI has instructed the Senate not to disclose. I have objected to those restrictions. I have written to the Office of Senate Security twice, noting that the Judiciary Committee did not agree to those restrictions. I have asked the FBI to provide the unclassified material directly to the committee. That letter has not been answered. These kinds of restrictions and document controls on unclassified information have no legal basis and there is no authority for them. They are unprecedented and out of bounds. They violate the executive order I quoted--the executive order on classified information--and they intrude on Congress's constitutional authority of oversight. This is not only an issue for the Judiciary Committee, this isn't only an issue in regard to what the FBI investigated or didn't investigate in regard to Secretary Clinton, this is an issue for every Senator--all 100 Members of the Senate--and every Senate committee to give deep consideration to because Senators need to consider the consequences of allowing the executive branch to unilaterally impose restrictions on unclassified information like this and tell a separate branch of government what we can do under the Constitution. Every Senator should realize, if this is allowed to stand, that other agencies will be able to abuse the system to undermine transparency, and we need transparency in government to have accountability in government. The Senate should not allow its controls on classified material to be manipulated to hide embarrassing material from public scrutiny, even when that material is unclassified. The FBI ought to do what it should have done from the very beginning: release all the unclassified information to the public. When Director Comey told me that he was going to bring these binders to the Hill and cooperate with Congress, giving us this information, I raised this very question with him in that telephone conversation. Now more than ever, the public has a right to know the whole picture and all the facts gathered by the FBI. Let the people see all of the evidence, and let the people judge for themselves. That would be true transparency. As a constitutionally elected official, I have an obligation to my constituents to represent them, be honest with them, assist them to the best of my abilities, and to make sure that what is the public's business actually is public. I cannot in good conscience do that when the FBI attempts to assert a vise grip on unclassified information that would be helpful in answering the calls and letters from my constituents. How can I look Americans in the eye and tell them that I have answers but can't share those answers because the FBI says so, even though the answers come from unclassified information? So to my fellow Americans but most importantly to my colleagues here in the Senate, in times like these, I cannot help but think about a quote from Thomas Jefferson: ``It is the people, to whom all authority belongs.'' It is the Federal Government that works for us; we do not work for the Federal Government. Facts and information gathered by public officials that are relevant to the debate over a public controversy belong to the public. I urge my colleagues to discuss and resolve this issue together. I will continue to do everything in my power to ensure that the full set of facts is brought to light.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to speak about the work of the Judiciary Committee and to make a short speech on the issue of the Affordable Care Act. Earlier this week, the minority leader came to the floor to speak about the Supreme Court vacancy. He made personal insults and threats, as he tends to do. But political stunts and childish tantrums aside, the minority leader knows the American people deserve to have their voices heard on the future of the Supreme Court. We have made the decision that the next President will select the next Justice of the Supreme Court. We have done that because the next Justice will have a profound impact on issues that matter to all of us for decades to come, and we think the people should have a voice in that matter. I spent the past several weeks meeting with Iowans across my State and discussing issues that concern them and what is on their minds looking forward to the election this fall. The vacancy on the Supreme Court created by the death of Justice Scalia came up time and again. At meeting after meeting during this summer, Iowans told me they appreciate the Senate's decision that the next President should nominate Justice Scalia's replacement. They understood that this nomination will affect the Court for years to come. For that reason, they want to have a voice in the matter, and we will give them that voice. That is the position the Judiciary Committee took after Justice Scalia's death. We wrote to Leader McConnell on February 23 to advise him that the next President should select the next Justice. We explained it this way: The Presidential election is well underway. . . . The American people are presented with an exceedingly rare opportunity to decide, in a very real and concrete way, the direction the Court will take over the next generation. We believe The People should have this opportunity. Our explanation is all the more true as we find ourselves just 2 months away from the Presidential election this fall. I remain convinced that we owe the people a chance to speak their minds on the Supreme Court during this election. I have not been surprised to hear from my fellow Iowans that they want their voices heard on the issue, and the Senate's decision to give the people this opportunity is no surprise either. We are acting in the Senate's long tradition as a check on the President's power to nominate. I would like to take as one example, because I have given several examples in other speeches--but go back to 1968. On June 26 of that Presidential election year, President Johnson announced his nomination of Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when Chief Justice Warren declared his intentions to retire. Abe Fortas, of course, was already an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court and had been unanimously confirmed by the Senate just a few years earlier. But that confirmation didn't take place in an election year like 1968. Within 24 hours of Justice Fortas's nomination to be Chief Justice, 19 Republican Senators issued the following statement: ``[T]he next Chief Justice should be selected . . . after the people have expressed themselves in the November elections.'' At the time, Democrats held the Senate, so these 19 Republican Members did not control the Judiciary Committee's proceedings on the floor. But those 19 Senators promised that if the issue was forced to a vote, they would ``vote against confirming any Supreme Court nominees by the incumbent President.'' These 19 Senators made this commitment immediately following the President's announcement of his intended nomination for the same reasons the Judiciary Committee has elected not to move forward the President's nomination of a successor to Justice Scalia. Here is what Senator Howard Baker said, as one among those 19 Senators: I have no questions concerning the legal capability of Justice Fortas . . . [but] there are, in my opinion, more important considerations at this time. Then, to continue to quote Senator Baker: The appointment of the Chief Justice really ought to be the prerogative of the new administration. . . . In my opinion, the judicial branch is not an isolated branch of Government. . . . It is and must be responsive to the sentiment of the people of the Nation. Those are my thoughts exactly, and they are not just shared by Republicans. Recall of course that then-Chairman Biden said in 1992 that processing a Supreme Court nomination in an election year harms the nominee, the country, and the Senate. And he only spoke of coming together on a nominee in the next Congress with a new President. I would finally like to address one more argument I have heard recently from those who support the President's nomination this election year. As we have drawn closer and closer to this Presidential election, they have tried to use the length of this vacancy as reason to move forward with this President's nomination. I have even heard some say that this is the longest Supreme Court vacancy ever. That is just plain false. I will list just a few examples. Two vacancies to fill the seats of Justices Baldwin and Daniel lasted longer than 2 years in the 1800s. Six Supreme Court vacancies have lasted longer than a year, and two more have lasted nearly that long. As this election draws closer by the day, the Judiciary Committee's position remains consistent. The next President will choose Justice Scalia's replacement. Senators have made this choice before--like the 19 who declared during the 1968 election year that the next President should choose Justice Warren's replacement. They did so, just as then-Chairman Biden said, because that course was best for the country during a politically charged election year. The same thing is true this election year. The next President will select the next Supreme Court Justice. ObamaCare Mr. President, I would like to say just a few words on the Affordable Care Act. I would like to give a direct quote from President Obama about ObamaCare: ``Too many Americans still strain to pay for their physician visits and prescriptions, cover their deductibles or pay their monthly insurance bill.'' I am glad that the President has finally heard that message. When I was having meetings in some of the 99 counties in Iowa this year, I heard plenty from families who felt duped by the promises of ObamaCare. Two families told me that their ObamaCare insurance premium was more than their house payment. Many said they did not know how they would continue to pay the premiums. But President Obama says, in effect, ``Pay no attention to rising premiums,'' and then promises to give people subsidies. But 97 percent of Americans do not receive ObamaCare subsidies. ObamaCare seems to be collapsing. Insurers are leaving the exchanges. There has been a lot of news on that lately. Premiums are increasing by double digits. In Iowa, some of those premiums increased as much as 28 percent, and I have heard a lot of States are much higher. Americans have fewer health care choices every day, despite the many promises that ObamaCare would improve just about every aspect of our health care system. Twenty percent of ObamaCare customers will be forced to find a new insurance company this fall. So much for the promise that was made in 2008 that ``if you like your [insurance], you can keep it.'' And it is official: You can no longer keep your doctor. So much for the promise of 2008 that ``if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.'' The Obama administration has now even erased all references on its Web site to the words ``keeping your doctor.'' The link to the web page that used to say ``how to keep your doctor'' now says ``how to pick a health plan.'' So ObamaCare seems to be collapsing. This comes as no surprise. ObamaCare has worked as well as piling 2 tons of fertilizer on a 1-ton truck, and of course any farmer can tell you, that just doesn't work very well for a long haul. We could enact alternative reforms aimed at solving America's biggest health care problems. Good places to start would be cracking down on frivolous lawsuits, letting people purchase insurance across State lines, improving transparency in the health care pricing, giving States more freedom to improve Medicaid, using consumer choice to drive competition, which in turn drives down costs, and changing the Tax Code so that small businesses can provide affordable health insurance to their employees. That financial help is something that ObamaCare took away, and this is exactly what my legislation, S. 1697, the Small Business Healthcare Relief Act, will do to give those employers an opportunity to provide that help to their employees. I have given only a partial list of policy changes so the American people can know that the failing ObamaCare program is not the only answer. I yield the floor.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, as a member of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, I have made it a goal to increase awareness and spark a dialogue about the importance of trademarks. Because this year constitutes the 70th anniversary of the Lanham Act, I would like to join my colleague, Senator Coons, in introducing a resolution to recognize the Lanham Act and designate July as National Anti- Counterfeiting Consumer Education and Awareness Month. Seventy years ago, the Lanham Act was signed by President Harry Truman to establish remedies for brand owners suffering from trademark infringement and to protect consumers from counterfeit products. It is this very law that has laid the foundation for modern trademark protection and led to a tremendous increase in the use of trademarks. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization, in 2012, approximately 24 million trademarks were in force around the world. Further, the U.S. Department of Commerce reports that 31 percent of all jobs in the United States are in intellectual property-intensive industries. Despite the legal framework currently in place to protect against counterfeiting, trademark-related crimes are one of the fastest growing economic problems worldwide. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, manufacturing, trade, and consumption of counterfeit products continues to increase, escalating from $250 billion in 2008 to $461 billion in 2013. Other counterfeiting trends were recently highlighted in a study released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Global Intellectual Property Center, GIPC. The study found that China and Hong Kong alone represent 86 percent of the global physical counterfeiting. This translates into $396.5 billion worth of counterfeit goods each year. This level of counterfeiting activity bears serious economic and health and safety implications, both locally and internationally. The GIPC also found that the value of seized counterfeit goods by customs in 38 sampled economies totals less than 2.5 percent of the global measure of physical counterfeiting. This suggests that although the efforts of customs authorities yield results, the extent of their success is still ``a drop in the bucket.'' Not only are trademark-related crimes growing rapidly, the devastating effects are also far-reaching. Trademark-related crimes impact not only whole industries, but economies as well. The most direct impact of counterfeiting is revenue loss. The GIPC estimates losses to be in the billions for any given industry. Brand owners are actively responding to this problem. According to a GIPC report, some companies spend as much as $20 million annually in an attempt to fight counterfeiting of their products. This is money that could have been spent on research and development, business expansion, and innovation. There are also indirect effects stemming from counterfeit products that cause economic disruption. For example, the presence of counterfeits leads to lowered incentives for innovation, spiking unemployment rates, and slower economic growth. This is a serious issue for the United States, considering the U.S. Department of Commerce reports intellectual property generates 34 percent of U.S. GDP, two- thirds of U.S. exports, and $5.8 trillion in U.S. output. Counterfeits have devastating effects on the health and safety of consumers. For example, there has been a spike in production of fakes that have an immense impact on everyday life--such as airbags, smoke detectors, computer chips, and prescription drugs. With increased counterfeiting of so many everyday products, the presumption of quality and effectiveness is becoming less certain. Unfortunately, there is an increased possibility of lasting and potentially fatal consequences for consumers' health and safety. In April, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing entitled, ``Counterfeits and Their Impact on Consumer Health and Safety.'' This hearing specifically explored how hazardous counterfeit products--like medicines, electronics, automotive, and military parts--can harm consumers. The hearing panel warned that consumers unknowingly purchase counterfeits. In fact, consumers often pay the same as they would for legitimate goods, but receive potentially unsafe products. For example, consumers are purchasing fake chargers that may explode or medicines that may be manufactured with dangerous or contaminated substances. These types of counterfeits can result in severe injuries, including death. The hearing panel also discussed the exploitation by counterfeits of e-commerce platforms with a business direct to consumer business model. Cyber commerce, for-profit streaming, and ever-changing technologies have continued to present new challenges in combating counterfeiting activity. They also discussed the changing tactics of counterfeiters, including small package delivery through the mail, which make it difficult for law enforcement to go after these criminals. Counterfeit products have been found to have ties to terrorism, trafficking, and organized crime groups around the world. According to the GIPC report, Interpol and FBI seizure records suggest that proceeds from counterfeit brake pads and cigarettes have been earmarked for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and al-Qaeda. As the scope of counterfeit products increases, so does the ability of criminal and hostile organizations to fund their illicit and harmful operations. Increased education and awareness efforts are critical to helping to put a stop to ar counterfeit activity. That is why we are honoring the Lanham Act and designating July as National Anti-Counterfeiting Consumer Education and Awareness Month. Educating members of Congress, the media, and the public about the dangers of counterfeits and the vital role trademarks play will help protect consumers from confusion and deception in the marketplace. In addition, Congress, Federal agencies and law enforcement, the business community, and consumer groups must all work together so we can keep consumers safe. As chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, as well as in my capacity as a cochair of the Congressional Trademark Caucus, I will continue to work aggressively to facilitate dialogue, inform consumers, and collaborate with government agencies on trademark-related issues. And I am pleased to work my colleague Senator Coons on this resolution.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have fought for years to protect our Nation's seniors from abuse and exploitation--initially, as former Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, former Chairman of Senate Finance Committee, and more recently, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Two weeks ago, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on Protecting Older Americans from Financial Exploitation. At the hearing, we heard about numerous scams in which seniors were targeted time after time, resulting in their being defrauded, often with devastating consequences. We also heard that many older Americans don't report instances of elder abuse or exploitation due to embarrassment, a refusal to acknowledge that they were victimized, or reliance on the perpetrator as their caretaker. Sadly, these accounts of elder abuse are nothing new. What has changed is that the scams targeting seniors are becoming increasingly sophisticated. That is one of the reasons why elder financial exploitation has been dubbed ``the crime of the 21st century.'' I have made it a top priority to get the federal government to step up its efforts to fight the abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of our Nation's seniors. To this end, I recently called on the Justice Department to outline its efforts to prevent and respond to instances of elder abuse. First, I sent a letter to the Department to find out what it's doing to protect seniors from a new and particularly troubling form of exploitation: the photographing and online publication of nursing home residents in embarrassing and compromising situations. I also sent a letter to inquire about the Department's efforts to fight imposter scams, in which fraudsters pose as employees of the IRS or another government agency, in order to deprive ordinary Americans of millions of dollars of their hard earned money. Most recently, I asked about the data the Department is collecting on financial exploitation, as well as how this data is being used to support Federal efforts to protect America's seniors. In its response to my inquiries, the Justice Department effectively admitted that it falls short in several respects. The Department said that it ``does not collect data on the prevalence of elder financial exploitation nationwide.'' Further, the Department said that it can't provide statistical information on the number of cases it has prosecuted for elder financial exploitation. What all this means is that we are not getting the full picture of elder financial exploitation. We do know that some older Americans' trusting and polite nature, combined with their hard-earned retirement savings, make them particularly attractive targets for fraudsters. We also know that the abuse and exploitation of older Americans is on the rise and it can take many forms. Financial exploitation is the most widespread form of elder abuse, costing America's seniors between an estimated $2.9 billion and $36 billion annually. But, sadly, its costs aren't limited to the negative effect on seniors' bank accounts. Victims suffer all sorts of negative effects, including diminished health, loss of independence, and psychological distress. It is estimated that up to 37 percent of seniors in the United States are affected by some form of financial exploitation in any 5-year period. In my home State of Iowa, so-called grandparent scams are on the rise. In these scams, fraudsters present themselves to an older American as a grandchild in distress, hoping to convince the grandparent to send cash or give out a credit card number. Con artists are also using sweepstakes scams to steal money from seniors. A senior is called and told they have won a prize or sum of money. But before they can claim the supposed prize, the victim is required to pay taxes or processing fees. Once the money is paid to cover the taxes and fees, however, no prize ever materializes. Other instances of elder financial exploitation are more personal in nature and have especially devastating effects. Some victims are pressured into signing over a deed, modifying a will, or giving a power of attorney. Americans have lost their farms, homes, and life savings to this form of fraud. In short, elder abuse and exploitation is a serious problem, and it demands a strong response. It requires all of us to work together in a collaborative way. So, today I am proud to introduce the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act. I thank my colleagues--Senators Blumenthal, Cornyn, Klobuchar, Rubio, and Bennet for collaborating with me on this comprehensive bill's development and joining as original cosponsors. It takes a multi-pronged, bipartisan approach to combating the abuse and financial exploitation of our nation's senior citizens. We've heard a need for specialized prosecutors and more focused efforts to combat abuse and exploitation. That is why the bill directs the Attorney General to designate at least one federal prosecutor in each U.S. Attorney's Office to serve as an Elder Justice Coordinator for that district. To ensure that elder abuse is a priority for the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, the bill also calls for each agency to have an Elder Justice Coordinator. We also need to send a strong message that efforts to target our Nation's seniors won't be tolerated. That is why the bill enhances elder victims' access to restitution and increases penalties for criminals who use telemarketing or email in their schemes to defraud seniors. The bill also requires that the Justice Department partner with the Department of Health and Human Services to provide training and technical assistance to State and local governments on the investigation, prevention, prosecution, and mitigation of elder abuse and neglect. Finally we have heard about the need for more data on financial exploitation and the government's response. Gathering accurate information about elder abuse is not only crucial to understanding the scope of the problem, but it is also essential in determining where resources should be allocated. So, the bill helps to accomplish that. It requires that data be collected from federal prosecutors and law enforcement in cases where an older American was the target of abuse or exploitation. These and other reforms included in the bill are the product of bipartisan discussion, as well as insight from key stakeholders and those who've been battling on the front lines. This 21st century crime requires a 21st century response. The Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act takes a strong step toward protecting our Nation's seniors, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Obama administration is putting Americans into harm's way by releasing drunk drivers who are in the country illegally back onto our streets. This is unbelievable when you consider that every two minutes, a person is injured by a drunk driver, and every day in America, 27 people die as a result of a drunk driving crash. These numbers translate into real people. I would like to talk about my constituent, Sarah Root, who was killed by a drunk driver the day she graduated from college. On January 31, 2016, Eswin Mejia, a Honduran national in the United States illegally, was drag racing in Omaha, NE, with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. He struck 21-year-old Sarah Root's vehicle from behind and she was killed. Mejia was charged with felony motor vehicle homicide. Although state authorities reportedly contacted ICE several times and requested the agency take custody of him prior to his release from state custody, ICE refused. He was released on bond and is now a fugitive from justice. In Kentucky, Chelsea Hogue and Meghan Lake were seriously injured by a drunk driver in the country illegally who had been previously deported five times in one week. On February 7, 2016, Jose Munoz Aguilar was arrested for drunk driving and colliding with a car occupied by the two young women, causing injuries to both women and putting one in a coma. Although Jose Aguilar was transferred to ICE custody, he was promptly released because he didn't meet the Obama administration's enforcement priorities. He remains at large. In May, three people from a Texas family were killed by a suspected drunk driver who had an outstanding warrant for a previous drunk driving conviction. He had three prior DWI offenses. One of the three family members--18 year old Mauricio Ramirez--was scheduled to graduate from high school just a few short weeks later. In Houston this May, an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and evading authorities injured a high school senior and killed a young girl who were on their way home from prom. The driver had been previously deported and attempted to run from the scene. On February 24, 2016, Esmid Valentine Pedraza was arrested in San Francisco, California, for the murder of Stacey Aguilar. Prior to allegedly committing the murder, Pedraza was reportedly arrested by ICE and placed in removal proceedings in August 2013 after Pedraza's conviction for DUI in Alameda County, California. Although ICE could have continued to detain him, ICE released him back onto the streets after he posted bond. Mesa, AZ Police Department Sergeant Brandon Mendoza lost his life to an illegal immigrant who was driving the wrong way down a one-way street. The driver was three times over the legal limit and high on meth when he struck Sgt. Mendoza head on. Sgt. Mendoza had just finished his shift of keeping citizens and his community safe. Police Officer Kevin Will of Houston, TX, was struck and killed by a drunk driver as he investigated a hit-and-run accident. The driver was in the country illegally. In Phoenix, Police Officer Daryl Raetz was killed by a man who admitted to being drunk and high, and was in the country illegally. Officer Raetz was an Iraq war veteran and had been a police officer for 6 years. He left behind a wife and daughter. Nobody argues that drunk driving is not a public safety risk, so it is remarkable that the Obama administration's own immigration enforcement priorities fail to take perpetrators off the street. Families coping with the grief of losing a loved one to such a senseless crime must also live with the reality that their government is quick to release offenders back into our communities. Today, along with several other Senators, I am introducing the Taking Action Against Drunk Drivers Act. Our bill would ensure that federal immigration authorities take custody and hold anyone in the country illegally who has been charged with driving under the influence, DUI, or driving while intoxicated, DWI, taking them off the streets and protecting the public. Additionally, my bill would make immigrants with three DUI or DWI convictions inadmissible to and removable from the country. Finally, it would make three DUI or DWI convictions an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This will allow for expedited removal and preclude eligibility for certain benefits and permanently bar legal admission into the country. We cannot let this current system that promotes the reckless death of innocent Americans continue. I encourage my colleagues to join me in an effort to protect our citizens from these dangerous people.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have fought for years to protect our Nation's seniors from abuse and exploitation--initially, as former Chairman of the Senate Aging Committee, former Chairman of Senate Finance Committee, and more recently, as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Two weeks ago, I chaired a Judiciary Committee hearing on Protecting Older Americans from Financial Exploitation. At the hearing, we heard about numerous scams in which seniors were targeted time after time, resulting in their being defrauded, often with devastating consequences. We also heard that many older Americans don't report instances of elder abuse or exploitation due to embarrassment, a refusal to acknowledge that they were victimized, or reliance on the perpetrator as their caretaker. Sadly, these accounts of elder abuse are nothing new. What has changed is that the scams targeting seniors are becoming increasingly sophisticated. That is one of the reasons why elder financial exploitation has been dubbed ``the crime of the 21st century.'' I have made it a top priority to get the federal government to step up its efforts to fight the abuse, neglect, and financial exploitation of our Nation's seniors. To this end, I recently called on the Justice Department to outline its efforts to prevent and respond to instances of elder abuse. First, I sent a letter to the Department to find out what it's doing to protect seniors from a new and particularly troubling form of exploitation: the photographing and online publication of nursing home residents in embarrassing and compromising situations. I also sent a letter to inquire about the Department's efforts to fight imposter scams, in which fraudsters pose as employees of the IRS or another government agency, in order to deprive ordinary Americans of millions of dollars of their hard earned money. Most recently, I asked about the data the Department is collecting on financial exploitation, as well as how this data is being used to support Federal efforts to protect America's seniors. In its response to my inquiries, the Justice Department effectively admitted that it falls short in several respects. The Department said that it ``does not collect data on the prevalence of elder financial exploitation nationwide.'' Further, the Department said that it can't provide statistical information on the number of cases it has prosecuted for elder financial exploitation. What all this means is that we are not getting the full picture of elder financial exploitation. We do know that some older Americans' trusting and polite nature, combined with their hard-earned retirement savings, make them particularly attractive targets for fraudsters. We also know that the abuse and exploitation of older Americans is on the rise and it can take many forms. Financial exploitation is the most widespread form of elder abuse, costing America's seniors between an estimated $2.9 billion and $36 billion annually. But, sadly, its costs aren't limited to the negative effect on seniors' bank accounts. Victims suffer all sorts of negative effects, including diminished health, loss of independence, and psychological distress. It is estimated that up to 37 percent of seniors in the United States are affected by some form of financial exploitation in any 5-year period. In my home State of Iowa, so-called grandparent scams are on the rise. In these scams, fraudsters present themselves to an older American as a grandchild in distress, hoping to convince the grandparent to send cash or give out a credit card number. Con artists are also using sweepstakes scams to steal money from seniors. A senior is called and told they have won a prize or sum of money. But before they can claim the supposed prize, the victim is required to pay taxes or processing fees. Once the money is paid to cover the taxes and fees, however, no prize ever materializes. Other instances of elder financial exploitation are more personal in nature and have especially devastating effects. Some victims are pressured into signing over a deed, modifying a will, or giving a power of attorney. Americans have lost their farms, homes, and life savings to this form of fraud. In short, elder abuse and exploitation is a serious problem, and it demands a strong response. It requires all of us to work together in a collaborative way. So, today I am proud to introduce the Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act. I thank my colleagues--Senators Blumenthal, Cornyn, Klobuchar, Rubio, and Bennet for collaborating with me on this comprehensive bill's development and joining as original cosponsors. It takes a multi-pronged, bipartisan approach to combating the abuse and financial exploitation of our nation's senior citizens. We've heard a need for specialized prosecutors and more focused efforts to combat abuse and exploitation. That is why the bill directs the Attorney General to designate at least one federal prosecutor in each U.S. Attorney's Office to serve as an Elder Justice Coordinator for that district. To ensure that elder abuse is a priority for the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department, the bill also calls for each agency to have an Elder Justice Coordinator. We also need to send a strong message that efforts to target our Nation's seniors won't be tolerated. That is why the bill enhances elder victims' access to restitution and increases penalties for criminals who use telemarketing or email in their schemes to defraud seniors. The bill also requires that the Justice Department partner with the Department of Health and Human Services to provide training and technical assistance to State and local governments on the investigation, prevention, prosecution, and mitigation of elder abuse and neglect. Finally we have heard about the need for more data on financial exploitation and the government's response. Gathering accurate information about elder abuse is not only crucial to understanding the scope of the problem, but it is also essential in determining where resources should be allocated. So, the bill helps to accomplish that. It requires that data be collected from federal prosecutors and law enforcement in cases where an older American was the target of abuse or exploitation. These and other reforms included in the bill are the product of bipartisan discussion, as well as insight from key stakeholders and those who've been battling on the front lines. This 21st century crime requires a 21st century response. The Elder Abuse Prevention and Prosecution Act takes a strong step toward protecting our Nation's seniors, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, the Obama administration is putting Americans into harm's way by releasing drunk drivers who are in the country illegally back onto our streets. This is unbelievable when you consider that every two minutes, a person is injured by a drunk driver, and every day in America, 27 people die as a result of a drunk driving crash. These numbers translate into real people. I would like to talk about my constituent, Sarah Root, who was killed by a drunk driver the day she graduated from college. On January 31, 2016, Eswin Mejia, a Honduran national in the United States illegally, was drag racing in Omaha, NE, with a blood alcohol level more than three times the legal limit. He struck 21-year-old Sarah Root's vehicle from behind and she was killed. Mejia was charged with felony motor vehicle homicide. Although state authorities reportedly contacted ICE several times and requested the agency take custody of him prior to his release from state custody, ICE refused. He was released on bond and is now a fugitive from justice. In Kentucky, Chelsea Hogue and Meghan Lake were seriously injured by a drunk driver in the country illegally who had been previously deported five times in one week. On February 7, 2016, Jose Munoz Aguilar was arrested for drunk driving and colliding with a car occupied by the two young women, causing injuries to both women and putting one in a coma. Although Jose Aguilar was transferred to ICE custody, he was promptly released because he didn't meet the Obama administration's enforcement priorities. He remains at large. In May, three people from a Texas family were killed by a suspected drunk driver who had an outstanding warrant for a previous drunk driving conviction. He had three prior DWI offenses. One of the three family members--18 year old Mauricio Ramirez--was scheduled to graduate from high school just a few short weeks later. In Houston this May, an illegal immigrant who was driving drunk and evading authorities injured a high school senior and killed a young girl who were on their way home from prom. The driver had been previously deported and attempted to run from the scene. On February 24, 2016, Esmid Valentine Pedraza was arrested in San Francisco, California, for the murder of Stacey Aguilar. Prior to allegedly committing the murder, Pedraza was reportedly arrested by ICE and placed in removal proceedings in August 2013 after Pedraza's conviction for DUI in Alameda County, California. Although ICE could have continued to detain him, ICE released him back onto the streets after he posted bond. Mesa, AZ Police Department Sergeant Brandon Mendoza lost his life to an illegal immigrant who was driving the wrong way down a one-way street. The driver was three times over the legal limit and high on meth when he struck Sgt. Mendoza head on. Sgt. Mendoza had just finished his shift of keeping citizens and his community safe. Police Officer Kevin Will of Houston, TX, was struck and killed by a drunk driver as he investigated a hit-and-run accident. The driver was in the country illegally. In Phoenix, Police Officer Daryl Raetz was killed by a man who admitted to being drunk and high, and was in the country illegally. Officer Raetz was an Iraq war veteran and had been a police officer for 6 years. He left behind a wife and daughter. Nobody argues that drunk driving is not a public safety risk, so it is remarkable that the Obama administration's own immigration enforcement priorities fail to take perpetrators off the street. Families coping with the grief of losing a loved one to such a senseless crime must also live with the reality that their government is quick to release offenders back into our communities. Today, along with several other Senators, I am introducing the Taking Action Against Drunk Drivers Act. Our bill would ensure that federal immigration authorities take custody and hold anyone in the country illegally who has been charged with driving under the influence, DUI, or driving while intoxicated, DWI, taking them off the streets and protecting the public. Additionally, my bill would make immigrants with three DUI or DWI convictions inadmissible to and removable from the country. Finally, it would make three DUI or DWI convictions an aggravated felony under the Immigration and Nationality Act. This will allow for expedited removal and preclude eligibility for certain benefits and permanently bar legal admission into the country. We cannot let this current system that promotes the reckless death of innocent Americans continue. I encourage my colleagues to join me in an effort to protect our citizens from these dangerous people.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about allegations that the FBI has facilitated ransom payments to terrorist groups. Unfortunately, the administration has been stonewalling the Senate Judiciary Committee's investigation into the matter. We have seen many terrible terrorist attacks recently. The government's highest duty is to provide for national security. That means fighting the radical Islamic terrorist groups that mean us harm. An important part of fighting radical Islamic terrorist groups is going after their funding. The U.S. Government should do everything it can to stop money from flowing to groups like al Qaeda and ISIS. The government has had significant successes in fighting terrorist funding. Ransom payments for hostages are one of the key sources of funds for terrorist groups to raise money. The government should not be participating in helping to make such payments. Yet, in April of last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that the FBI had helped facilitate a $250,000 ransom payment to al Qaeda. It was from the family of kidnapped aid worker Warren Weinstein back in 2012. That report was later confirmed by 60 Minutes in an interview with Dr. Weinstein's widow. Around the same time as that Wall Street Journal article, Army LTC Jason Amerine contacted Judiciary Committee staff. He is a decorated war hero who reached out to Congressman Hunter, Senator Johnson, and to my office, to raise concerns about ineffective hostage-recovery efforts. He alleged that the FBI was involved in a ransom payment made in an effort to recover SGT Bowe Bergdahl. To be clear, the U.S. Government should take all appropriate measures to recover American hostages. But those measures cannot include ransom payments that end up funding more terrorist operations. Ransom payments are big business for terrorist groups. According to a 2014 investigation by the New York Times, Al Qaeda and its affiliates have taken in at least $125 million from kidnapping for ransom since 2008. ISIS also takes in huge amounts from ransom payments. The United Nations estimated that ISIS collected between $35 and $45 million in ransom payments in 2014 alone. This is a serious threat to our national security. In 2012, David S. Cohen, who was the Treasury Department's Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence at the time, explained why in a presentation on the issue. He said: Ransom payments lead to future kidnappings, and future kidnappings lead to additional ransom payments. And it all builds the capacity of terrorist organizations to conduct attacks. Al Qaeda affiliates use ransom money to help fund the full range of their activities, including recruiting and indoctrinating new members, paying salaries, establishing training camps, acquiring weapons and communications gear and helping to support the next generation of violent extremist groups. Paying ransoms incentivizes terrorists to kidnap more people, and it funds their terrorist attacks. The administration says it is still U.S. policy for the government to deny hostage-takers the benefits of ransom. But its policy on helping others make ransom payments is murky. If the FBI pays lip-service to the no-ransom policy by not making payments itself, but facilitates payments by others, then the financial incentive for terrorists to kidnap people remains the same. The Judiciary Committee has jurisdiction over the Department of Justice, including the FBI. The FBI's hostage-recovery efforts, including any facilitated ransom payments, must be subject to constitutional oversight by the committee. The Justice Department has failed to fully cooperate with the committee's inquiries. In May of last year I wrote to the Attorney General. I asked several questions about the FBI's alleged involvement in facilitating payments to terrorist groups. Among other things, I asked: ``Has the FBI been involved in any transfer of money in connection with attempts to secure the release of hostages held by al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani network, ISIS, or associated forces?'' The Justice Department failed to respond for 5 months. In the meantime, the President issued Executive Order 13698 and Presidential Policy Directive 30. Those established a new hostage- recovery policy as the result of an interagency review. Then, 5 months after I sent my questions to the Attorney General, the Justice Department finally sent me a response. That response failed to answer my questions. Instead, the response just summarized the public documents released by the administration when it announced its new hostage-recovery policy. Merely pointing to publicly available documents is not good faith cooperation with independent fact finding. So I wrote to the White House last fall. I asked that the administration provide the committee the classified parts of the new hostage-recovery policy, PPD-30, as well as the classified part of the policy it replaced, NSPD-12. But the administration failed to share those classified parts of the policies with the Committee. Think about that. The FBI plays a key role in hostage-recovery efforts. The Judiciary Committee is responsible for overseeing the FBI. Yet, the administration refuses to even tell the Committee in full what its written policies say. That kind of stonewalling is unacceptable. I referred the matter to the Inspector General for the Department of Justice last October. In February, he informed me that his office had opened an initial inquiry. That inquiry is ongoing. My investigation continues as well. Yesterday I sent another letter to Attorney General Lynch and Director Comey seeking complete answers to my questions and complete copies of the policy documents. If the public reports are accurate, then there is a very real possibility that the FBI has helped send millions of dollars to al Qaeda and ISIS. That money inevitably was used to help terrorists kill more innocent people. The Judiciary committee needs all the facts to get to the bottom of this. The FBI should cooperate. The Department of Justice should cooperate. The White House should cooperate. FBI Director Comey and Attorney General Lynch should fully respond to all the questions in my May 2015 letter. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of that letter be printed in the Record.

Mr. GRASSLEY. There is no excuse for stonewalling oversight, but it is especially inexcusable in a matter as important as this. It is shocking that the only answer the FBI can come up with to these allegations is silence. Burying our heads in the sand does not make the issue go away. If our government is assisting in paying ransom money to terrorists, Congress needs to know, the public needs to know. The government officials involved need to be accountable. The facts cannot be hidden from the FBI's oversight committee. The policies implementing our laws on this topic cannot be kept secret from the FBI's oversight committee. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules be discharged from further consideration of S. 2893 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 533, submitted earlier today.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 534, submitted earlier today.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I understand that there are four bills that have been received from the House and are at the desk.

Mr. GRASSLEY. I ask for their first reading en bloc.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 532, submitted earlier today.

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I rise because I continue to believe that the Senate should take up the Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act. There is still time this year for both the Senate and the other body to pass legislation reforming sentencing. In light of recent and justified public concern over treatment of suspects by some police and treatment of police by people who would do them harm, the need for the bill is even greater. The Sentencing Reform and Corrections Act contains three parts, each of which was formed as the basis of a bipartisan compromise among Judiciary Committee members, as well as members off the Committee. The first is a reduction in the mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders. The bill takes great pains to limit sentencing reductions to people with minimal criminal histories and no history of serious violence. Second, the bill enhances prison programming that has been proven to reduce the likelihood of reoffending, and reduces the sentences of inmates who successfully completed those programs. Reducing the likelihood of future crimes reduces the crime rate. And third, the bill makes various reforms to the federal criminal justice system. For instance, it allows people convicted of certain crimes as juveniles to expunge their criminal records if they turn their lives around. And it remedies a constitutional defect in Federal criminal law by permitting individuals sentenced to life sentences as juveniles to seek parole after many years, but doesn't guarantee that parole will be granted. It even adds two new mandatory minimum sentences to the Federal criminal code for serious crimes. The confidence of people in the criminal justice system is not as strong as we would like. There are various reasons for this lack of trust, and some of them are valid. The Judiciary Committee reported a compromise bill that is designed to address some of those concerns. The sponsors' willingness to compromise was further demonstrated by a managers' amendment that narrowed the bill's sentencing reductions. Those changes responded to concerns of some of my Republican colleagues and brought on board a number of new Republican cosponsors. I have been willing for a long time to enter into an agreement where members can offer amendments of various kinds and we can vote. For instance, the House has determined that a provision of substantive criminal law addressing intent should be part of any bill. I have been open to any compromise on that issue that could gain 60 votes. And I would agree to have a vote on the subject if a compromise cannot be reached. The differences can be aired and resolved. I am certain that this bill would receive many more than 60 votes and that most of the Republican conference would vote for it if given the chance. No one thinks the sentencing bill is perfect, as it represents a compromise among people with strong differences of opinion. But the people of this country want action to address deficiencies in the criminal justice system. This bill would make important but limited changes in the way the Federal Government sentences those who commit crimes. We should take the bill up, debate it, and show the American people that we are willing to take on one of the most important domestic challenges facing the country.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats. I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I am glad to be introducing today the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2016, which will ensure the continued success. I appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Heitkamp, Thune, Whitehouse, Kirk, Heinrich, Ernst, Donnelly, Blunt, Hirono, Franken and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blenders credit to a domestic production credit, and extend the credit through 2019. Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive, and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating since 2009 to modify the current incentive. We have proposed making the credit available for the domestic production of biodiesel, rather than a mixture credit available to the blender of the fuel. The bill we are introducing today is similar to an amendment that I offered with Senator Cantwell during consideration of the tax extenders package in the Senate Finance Committee in July of last year. Our biodiesel reform amendment passed unanimously by voice vote. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer, because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. It is projected that imports from Argentina, Indonesia, Singapore, the European Union, South Korea and others could exceed 1.8 billion gallons over 2016 and 2017. We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we'll also save taxpayer money. The amendment adopted in the Finance Committee was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to reduce the cost of the extension by $90 million. Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 55 percent of capacity. The domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers. The current biodiesel credit expires at the end of this year. It is my hope that when the Senate considers legislation to extend expiring tax provisions, that the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2016, will be included. I strongly encourage the leadership of the House and Senate to include these biodiesel reform policies that were adopted in the Senate Finance Committee unanimously last year. This modification will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American biodiesel and this common-sense, cost reduction reform.

Mr. GRASSLEY

Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I have long been a champion of domestic biofuel production, including ethanol, biodiesel and cellulosic fuels. Domestic biodiesel production supports tens of thousands of jobs. Replacing traditional diesel with biodiesel reduces emissions and creates cleaner air. Homegrown biodiesel improves our energy security by diversifying our transportation fuels and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. Biodiesel itself is a very diverse fuel. It can be produced from a wide array of resources such as recycled cooking oil, soybean and other plant oils, and animal fats. I am proud of the success of the American biodiesel industry, and I am glad to be introducing today the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2016, which will ensure the continued success. I appreciate Senator Cantwell's leadership in joining this effort. I also appreciate the support of Senators Roberts, Heitkamp, Thune, Whitehouse, Kirk, Heinrich, Ernst, Donnelly, Blunt, Hirono, Franken and Murray. This bill will modify the biodiesel fuel blenders credit to a domestic production credit, and extend the credit through 2019. Congress created the biodiesel tax incentive in 2005 when I was Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee. As a result of this incentive, and the Renewable Fuel Standard, biodiesel is providing significant benefits to the nation. Senator Cantwell and I have been advocating since 2009 to modify the current incentive. We have proposed making the credit available for the domestic production of biodiesel, rather than a mixture credit available to the blender of the fuel. The bill we are introducing today is similar to an amendment that I offered with Senator Cantwell during consideration of the tax extenders package in the Senate Finance Committee in July of last year. Our biodiesel reform amendment passed unanimously by voice vote. Converting to a producer credit improves the incentive in many ways. The blenders credit can be difficult to administer, because the blending of the fuel can occur at many different stages of the fuel distribution. This can make it difficult to ensure that only fuel that qualifies for the credit claims the incentive. It has been susceptible to abuse because of this. A credit for domestic production will also ensure that we are incentivizing the domestic industry, rather than subsidizing imported biofuels. It is projected that imports from Argentina, Indonesia, Singapore, the European Union, South Korea and others could exceed 1.8 billion gallons over 2016 and 2017. We should not provide a U.S. taxpayer benefit to imported biofuels. By restricting the credit to domestic production, we'll also save taxpayer money. The amendment adopted in the Finance Committee was estimated by the Joint Committee on Taxation to reduce the cost of the extension by $90 million. Importantly, modifying the credit will have little to no impact on the consumer. Much of the credit will continue to be passed on to the blender and ultimately, the consumer. Additionally, the U.S. biodiesel industry is currently operating at approximately 55 percent of capacity. The domestic biodiesel industry has the capacity and access to affordable feedstocks to meet the demand of U.S. consumers. The current biodiesel credit expires at the end of this year. It is my hope that when the Senate considers legislation to extend expiring tax provisions, that the Biodiesel Tax Incentive Reform and Extension Act of 2016, will be included. I strongly encourage the leadership of the House and Senate to include these biodiesel reform policies that were adopted in the Senate Finance Committee unanimously last year. This modification will ensure that the credit is doing what Congress intended--incentivizing investment in domestic biodiesel production. Surely we can agree that we should not be providing a U.S. taxpayer subsidy to already heavily subsidized foreign biodiesel imports. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the production of American biodiesel and this common-sense, cost reduction reform.